Mahammadhanip Rahemulla Ansari vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - A.P.P. — 654/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 18th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHNG010032152026
e-Filing Number
04-03-2026
Filing Number
1465/2026
Filing Date
05-Mar-2026
Registration No
654/2026
Registration Date
05-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Nagpur
Judge
25-District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Last updated 12-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
79
Police Station
Deolapaur
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Mahammadhanip Rahemulla Ansari
Adv. DEORAS EESHAN RAJEEV
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Advocate - A.P.P.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The Special Court NDPS Act, Nagpur granted bail to accused Mahammadhanip s/o Rahemulla Ansari, finding that the 1,350 gms of ganja seized was below commercial quantity, Section 37 of NDPS Act was inapplicable, and the accused had no criminal antecedents. The court imposed stringent conditions including a Rs. 50,000 bond with surety, prohibition on tampering with evidence/witnesses, biweekly reporting, and appearance at all proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
-
12-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 654/2026
The Special Court NDPS Act, Nagpur granted bail to accused Mahammadhanip s/o Rahemulla Ansari, finding that the 1,350 gms of ganja seized was below commercial quantity, Section 37 of NDPS Act was inapplicable, and the accused had no criminal antecedents. The court imposed stringent conditions including a Rs. 50,000 bond with surety, prohibition on tampering with evidence/witnesses, biweekly reporting, and appearance at all proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts